Total Posts:238|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Life produces life

Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 11:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

I fail to comprehend your comments relation to religion. Unless you are indicating creationism, which is slightly opaque yet faintly implicit.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 11:33:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.
100-years ago, reality would have taught us that only life produces flight, and if you weren't born to fly, then you never would.

All you're really saying is that we haven't been able to synthesize life... YET! And given the amazing leaps and bounds we've covered in the field of abiogenesis in the past 30-years, smart money is on the bet that we'll produce synthetic life (real life), in the next 50-years.

But you have to be willing to research honestly or you'll never understand what life is, or how it might be synthesized. And once we do synthesize it, the call will go out that it's not "intelligent life", or not "sentient life". Theists aren't good at many things but they're incredibly skilled at shifting goal posts.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 11:46:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?
When will you stop pleading for everyone to stop trying because it threatens your safe little emotional nest?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?
But we don't have a lack of evidence. We actually have a great collection of evidence which suggests that life can be synthesized. But here again, it's important to note that if you live your life hiding your head in the sand for fear that you might learn what you don't wish to know, then the only thing that might interrupt your subterranean ignorance buffering are all of the people around you who are getting on with the process despite you.

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?
Every generation observes things not observed by the generation which preceded it. One thing nearly every generation has believed, despite the fact that there is no evidence for it, is a form of creator-god. And you believe in that (or claim that you do), despite the lack of evidence. Yet you admonish those of us who look for the evidence which suggests we will synthesize life, and claim we have insufficient evidence and shouldn't believe it to be possible.

And let's not forget that metaphysical things can't be alive. Life is a chemical process which requires a chemical physical body.

So here is my suggestion for you. Stop trying to hide from truths you don't like. Reality has no obligation to your emotional wants, fears or desires. Learn what life really is, and stop trying to reject it with pleas to your personal emotional state. Accept that life is...
1. Homeostasis
2. Growth
3. Reaction to Stimuli
4. Reproduction
5. Metabolism
6. The ability to adapt to an environment.

Then note that research has already succeeded in 3, 4, 5 and 6. And some of the accepted forms of life today don't display all six. So we're only a step or two away. You can fear reality and spend your life trying to warn everyone else away from it for the sake of your own anxieties, or you can accept reality and gain from it. Denying the obvious viability of abiogenesis today is about as bright and intelligent as denying the link between microbes and disease was 350-years ago.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DanielS18
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 11:56:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

I partly agree. We should throw religion out the window. It has no proof, and will never have any proof due to lack of evidence. I'm glad you use the word "fantasy", too. That is exactly what religion is.

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Some have. Unfourtunately, there are many people like yourself who blatently ignore the astounding amount of evidence we have for theories like evolution. We can observe natural selection taking place and we cause artificial selection to occur all the time.

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

I completely agree, out of context. Why take all of the physical evidence that we have collected that clearly supports theories like evolution, the big bang, or even the age of the Earth, and get rid of it? Why do we embrace the "fantasies" that religion teaches us (like the nonsense that the world is less than 6000 years old) when we have clear, verifiable evidence supporting the contrary?

Also, as a side note, you have clearly done absolutely no research on any of the theories pertaining to the origins of life, and are therefore just making assumptions. Educate yourself. Try to argue against what the scientists are saying after you know what you are talking about. There are other theists on this site that can post well supported arguments, there is no reason you can't. Here, you just come off sounding ignorant.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 5:17:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

Life produces life. What does that change about anything?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 5:04:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:13:37 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

I fail to comprehend your comments relation to religion. Unless you are indicating creationism, which is slightly opaque yet faintly implicit.

According to the Oxford dictionary
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
the definition of Religion is "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:"

Superhuman controlling beings are fictional characters. Humans who believe in such characters believe in a fantasy.
Humans who believe that a fictional character created the "first life forms" out of nothing also believe in a fantasy.
Does that make the subject clearer for you as relating to religion?
Why believe any supernatural God created Life when reality clearly shows us that Life itself creates Life? The process of the creation of life can be observed through life itself because the process is repetitive.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 5:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:33:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.
100-years ago, reality would have taught us that only life produces flight, and if you weren't born to fly, then you never would.

Humans invented airplanes and many other machines so humans can do what they desire to do. Humans are life forms. In the sense of humans creating a machine which would give them the ability to fly, Life has indeed created flight. The reality which applied 100 years ago regarding LIFE producing or creating flight, still remains true today. Humans ( life) have invented their own ways to fly. Nothing outside of human life invented the airplane. No airplane or any other machine simply evolved all by itself from chemicals floating through the air. Did it?

All you're really saying is that we haven't been able to synthesize life... YET! And given the amazing leaps and bounds we've covered in the field of abiogenesis in the past 30-years, smart money is on the bet that we'll produce synthetic life (real life), in the next 50-years.

I am saying that humans can invent and create or produce machines and many artificial things which are similar in outward appearances to naturally living things but they cannot create living humans if they do not use the egg and sperm which comes from humans in the first place. They cannot create artificial human sperm or a artificial human eggs out of chemicals alone and combine them and expect to produce a natural normal baby. Not after nine months and not after billions of years either. It takes a human to create a human even if you do end up with only an artificial robot which works but cannot think for itself and has no emotions at all.
You simply cannot create a living thing without making use of the reproduction process of life itself.
I will use my imagination and imagine that humans do end up creating some synthetic life in the future. However, the fact is that synthetic life in that case will be created by natural life (Living humans ) not by some chemicals which happen to combine randomly in a state where no life exists in the fist place.
You will never produce intelligence from non intelligent chemicals floating around in space. Only a moron would believe any intelligent life would arise or evolve out of chemicals just floating around in space.
Humans are considered to be intelligent life forms. Well at least a FEW of them are. MOST are idiots by choice because they choose to believe intelligence arose or evolved out of non intelligence or magically appeared because some supernatural mythical character said a magic word.

But you have to be willing to research honestly or you'll never understand what life is, or how it might be synthesized. And once we do synthesize it, the call will go out that it's not "intelligent life", or not "sentient life". Theists aren't good at many things but they're incredibly skilled at shifting goal posts.

Are you implying that you understand what life is and others do not?
Oxford dictionary definition of Life...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
"The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death:"

If you are using a different definition of Life, that would be the reason we are not on the same page and misunderstanding each other.
To understand each other we need to use the same definition. Agreed?

Is a computer alive?
Is it a life form?
Was is created by an intelligent being ( Humans) or did it evolve all by itself without the help of any humans?

Since you imply that you understand life so much better than most of us, please explain what causes the condition that distinguishes and idiot from an intelligent being.

How much research or intelligence does it take to understand that it takes a living male and a female human to produce a new human?

How much research does it take to understand that if you just put chemicals in space and do nothing to them, they will NEVER evolve into any organic life form?

Do you think a robot which has been created and programmed by an intelligent human will ever evolve into a sentient life form?

Do you think an idiot can ever evolve into an intelligent life form?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:27:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:46:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?
When will you stop pleading for everyone to stop trying because it threatens your safe little emotional nest?

Stop trying? What exactly do you think I am asking people to stop trying?
Do you think I am threatened by other peoples belief in myths about where life came from? LMAO.
I find that very amusing since I do not feel threatened by what anyone else believes any more than you would feel threatened by a childs belief in Santa Claus. That child however might feel threatened by the whole idea that their belief is childish and Santa does not exist. The adult is not threatened by it at all.
You are probably only seeing a reflection of your own insecurity in me. I understand why you don't like to admit that you are the insecure one.

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?
But we don't have a lack of evidence. We actually have a great collection of evidence which suggests that life can be synthesized. But here again, it's important to note that if you live your life hiding your head in the sand for fear that you might learn what you don't wish to know, then the only thing that might interrupt your subterranean ignorance buffering are all of the people around you who are getting on with the process despite you.

Humans have evidence that HUMANS can CREATE whatever they decide to create or invent or produce or whatever other word you wish you use to define the concept of making something out of something else. Humans are very CREATIVE life forms. They even create stories which others will believe without question. Stories are not created from chemicals.
Humans have no evidence at all that chemicals floating around in space have ever evolved into any sentient life form. That cannot be observed and has never been observed.
Humans have no evidence at all that humans as a whole species once did not exist in order to reproduce new humans.
A collection of so called "evidence" may suggest many things. It is those SUGGESTIONS which create the illusions of reality.
Suggesting that life once did not exist because you cannot find any evidence of its existence beyond a certain point in history is as stupid as saying life in the future 300 years from today will never exist because we can find no evidence of its existence.
Simple LOGIC ought to tell all people that it will exist even if no scientific method can prove it.
IF you can prove the existence of future human life 300 years from today with some kind of scientific method then use the same method backwards to understand human life has always existed.

Humans LACK evidence of many things and idiots like to believe that absence of evidence equates with nonexistence but intelligent people understand that is not the case at all. Life does not arise from non life. It never has and never will. If Humans create Life, regardless of whether it is naturally or synthetically, the end result is still LIFE creating life. It is not LIFE arising out of a bunch of chemicals floating randomly in space. When human manipulate chemicals or manipulate existing life to produce new versions of life forms they are not reproducing a random process. They are doing something that has a purpose and a method behind it. Humans are life forms trying to reproduce life chemically but they will never produce anything sentient without using the same process and materials which currently produces life naturally without human intervention.

Is it not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?
Every generation observes things not observed by the generation which preceded it.

Humans have always observed life forms reproducing life even if not all have observed the whole development from a single cell and not all understand all life cycles or exactly HOW the different life forms reproduce. The simple observation of life producing life can be observed even by a young child who observes the birth of an animal.
The fact that we can observe more today inside a woman than our ancestors ever did should make us more intelligent than they were. Instead of holding on to the concept that human life once did not exist but evolved from a single cell over billions of years in a different environment, those of us who are intelligent actually do understand that the evolution of a single cell into a person does not take billions of years but only approx nine months in the right environment which is the environment of the mothers womb. The time obviously varies depending on different factors. Lifes reproduction cycles are VERY FAST. Life does not take billions of years to evolve from a single cell into a mature life form. There is absolutely no reason other than sheer ignorance to believe it ever did. Our ancestors were ignorant. Don't be as ignorant as they were. There is no need to hold on to their ignorant claims.
The increase in knowledge ought to make future generations smarter not leave them just as ignorant as humanity today which continues to chase the answer to the origin of life because they hang on to the whole concept that life in general once did not exist.

One thing nearly every generation has believed, despite the fact that there is no evidence for it, is a form of creator-god. And you believe in that (or claim that you do), despite the lack of evidence. Yet you admonish those of us who look for the evidence which suggests we will synthesize life, and claim we have insufficient evidence and shouldn't believe it to be possible.

Any mythical creator does not exist in reality. I do not believe and am not claiming to believe in any invisible supernatural character in the sky. I believe in LIFE reproducing itself. I believe it because it is a reality which can be observed. If you can prove to me that life in general does not reproduce life or once did not reproduce life, I will stop believing it does but till I am convinced that Life does not come from life itself, I will continue to believe that it has always reproduced life and will always reproduce life.

I am not admonishing anyone who tries to synthesize life or manipulate life or increase the life of living things. I am simply saying that it must be impossible for life in general to once have not existed even though it is possible for individual life forms to once have not existed in the visible reality which humans observe on this planet.

Human life which will exist 500 years or billions of years from today do not appear to exist today. There is no evidence of their existence. Do they exist in your opinion or not? If not, why not?
If matter cannot be created or destroyed all future humans already exist but we just cannot see them with our physical eyes.
Where do they exist? In some chemical form in space which will evolve into humans or in the "seed" which is within humans right now?

We could say future humans are imaginary beings who exist only in our hopes and dreams. We will never see them in our lifetime so how can we know they will become visible? We know because of experience. WE (Humans on the planet today) will create them through the reproductive system of humans. " Let us create man in our own image"
It is easily done naturally but if some eccentric scientists want to try to do it artificially in a lab with chemicals they are free to try it. Create an artificial human if you can. Make him sentient if you can. Program him with all available knowledge, but can you make him understand you? Can you make an idiot understand you today?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 7:55:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:46:55 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:

And let's not forget that metaphysical things can't be alive. Life is a chemical process which requires a chemical physical body.

So here is my suggestion for you. Stop trying to hide from truths you don't like. Reality has no obligation to your emotional wants, fears or desires. Learn what life really is, and stop trying to reject it with pleas to your personal emotional state. Accept that life is...
1. Homeostasis
2. Growth
3. Reaction to Stimuli
4. Reproduction
5. Metabolism
6. The ability to adapt to an environment.

Then note that research has already succeeded in 3, 4, 5 and 6. And some of the accepted forms of life today don't display all six. So we're only a step or two away. You can fear reality and spend your life trying to warn everyone else away from it for the sake of your own anxieties, or you can accept reality and gain from it. Denying the obvious viability of abiogenesis today is about as bright and intelligent as denying the link between microbes and disease was 350-years ago.

Metaphysical things might not be alive in themselves but they are created by life forms. Humans create abstract concepts and make them a way of life. They are a result of the physical processes of our own minds.
Love for example is not a living thing of itself. It is not a chemical of any kind even if you can reproduce something that results in what we call love chemically. Love, hate, joy, sorrow, etc are merely words which describe human concepts, attitudes and emotions. They are all part of life even if they are not physical things.
Why do you constantly reject the fact that abstract concepts are part of life? They exist in the mind and understanding of humans despite being intangible and abstract.
Do you believe that humans will exist on this planet in 500 years from today?
If you do, why do you believe it?
There is no evidence of their existence, or is there? Are humans on this plant today evidence of the existence of future humans?
Some humans have the ability to adapt to new concepts. Others obviously do not. They end up stuck in the rut of their own thinking and they die in that rut.
Abstract concept exist in the mind of humans. Humans can turn those abstract concepts into as much of a reality as they want them to be. It is called being creative. It is called Art. Believe it or not.

It takes life to create life. It also takes life to create anything artificial. It also takes life to create illusions. myths and fantasies. Nothing arises out of something that was not living in the first place. It takes intelligence to understand that.
You can program any fool with all the knowledge in the world and that fool might be able to quote it till they are blue in the face and appear to be intelligent and impress many people but if the fool has no understanding about what they are talking about, they are no more intelligent than a trained parrot. Their intelligence becomes nothing but an illusion of intelligence.

Life does not and never has arisen out of any non life form. Believing it did is about as as bright and intelligent as a programmed computer which spits out information about evolving from random chemicals and minerals which once were floating around in space while believing that humans once did not exist and did not create it.
It makes no difference if myths are religious or scientific they remain concepts of the human mind. All myths and human concepts are human creations.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:02:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:33:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.
100-years ago, reality would have taught us that only life produces flight, and if you weren't born to fly, then you never would.

Flight is still only produced by life. Either you are born to fly or you are born with the brains to make flying machines, or to make other machines that make flying machines. Life is still in the equation.

All you're really saying is that we haven't been able to synthesize life... YET! And given the amazing leaps and bounds we've covered in the field of abiogenesis in the past 30-years, smart money is on the bet that we'll produce synthetic life (real life), in the next 50-years.

It's easy to make noise with a trumpet, but a lot harder to make it sound good. I see no reason to believe that we will ever be able to do more than make a second-rate copy of life.

But you have to be willing to research honestly or you'll never understand what life is, or how it might be synthesized. And once we do synthesize it, the call will go out that it's not "intelligent life", or not "sentient life". Theists aren't good at many things but they're incredibly skilled at shifting goal posts.

Everyone shifts goalposts. When I was young there was a clear distinction between adaptation and evolution. Now adaptation is micro-evolution, and is supposed to prove that evolution happens. Everybody suffers from confirmation bias.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 8:04:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Because we know, at some point, life did not exist.


Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:04:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 11:56:22 PM, DanielS18 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

I partly agree. We should throw religion out the window. It has no proof, and will never have any proof due to lack of evidence. I'm glad you use the word "fantasy", too. That is exactly what religion is.

Many people do throw religion out the window when they come to understand that God is a fantasy character. However, they still do not throw the concept of good and evil out the window. They do not throw the concept of judgment out the window because they continue to judge each other constantly.
Religion is filled with fantasy but so is science. The reason is because humans are filled with fantastic ideas with which they are constantly trying to impress others. Science fiction is believed by many people because it appears plausible in their own imaginations.
Very few can tell the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to abstract concepts.
Maths for example is an abstract concept. Is it a fantasy or a reality ? If it is an abstract concept why do scientists use it to prove anything or define and explain anything at all?

Is it not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Some have. Unfourtunately, there are many people like yourself who blatently ignore the astounding amount of evidence we have for theories like evolution. We can observe natural selection taking place and we cause artificial selection to occur all the time.

Natural or artificial selection are processes which can be observed and manipulated by humans in a human lifetime. It does not prove the theory of evolution in the sense of life once not existing and all life forms evolving from the same original source, any more than watching a science fiction movie about the earth exploding proves that the earth will one day explode.
What humans observe is proof of nothing but of what they observe. All things are only proof of themselves.
Seeing a man walk on water does not prove he can actually walk on water. It only proves that he has been observed to walk on water. Whether he is actually doing what he is observed to be doing is rather questionable when you understand that humans cannot naturally walk on water. Depending on what you know to be true, you will either believe that a man walking on water is a supernatural feat or you will understand that you are observing an illusion in progress and what appears to be real is not real at all.

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

I completely agree, out of context. Why take all of the physical evidence that we have collected that clearly supports theories like evolution, the big bang, or even the age of the Earth, and get rid of it?

For the same reason I throw out the idea that the observation of a man walking on water proves he is walking on water. I know it is just an illusion even if I don't know exactly what he really is walking on. I know there logically must be something solid under his feet.
Any so called evidence which supports the evolution of life from any non life form is about as good as the evidence of a bunch of presents under the xmas tree being evidence of the existence of Santa Claus. Believe it if you must but it is nothing but an illusion of what you want to be true.
Evolution has its place. Life forms obviously do grow and change and interact with one another but none of it takes billions of years to produce life itself. The process of the reproduction of life is very fast through lifes own reproductive cycles. When one form of life appears to change into another form of life it is called metamorphosis and even that process does not take billions of years. We understand that mature forms of some things are a very different shape to the immature forms eg tadpoles to frogs, caterpillars to butterflies. Are they changing due to any adaptation to any environment or simply going through their natural life cycles of change?

If a human baby is born with two heads or four legs is that some kind of natural selection process or adaptation to environment or proof of evolution or the birth of some god which needs to be worshipped? Of course not. Nature has many different cycles. Life has many cycles. Those cycle are repetitive and there is no proof that those various cycles once did not exist concurrently and simultaneously in exactly the same way they do today.

Why do we embrace the "fantasies" that religion teaches us (like the nonsense that the world is less than 6000 years old) when we have clear, verifiable evidence supporting the contrary?

Because humans are gullible and lazy and like to believe what others say, especially if the so called "teacher" can convince the student they know more than the student does and the convinces the student that they ought to simply take their word for it. That is why the students quote their respected teachers. It makes no difference if the teachers are religious teachers or scientific teachers. The students "drink in"and "swallow" all they teach them and simply believe them because after all , our teachers are supposed to know more than us, right? People end up being like programmed trained parrots who can say what their trainers taught them to say but really have no clue what they are talking about.
The age of anything at all as measured by humans is always subjective. No objective measurement for the age of the planet exists. Age is an abstract concept. How old is eternity? If matter cannot be created or destroyed it has existed for all eternity. Has it not? If not, was it created at some point in time which you wish to call "the beginning of matter" or "the beginning of life"?

Also, as a side note, you have clearly done absolutely no research on any of the theories pertaining to the origins of life, and are therefore just making assumptions. Educate yourself. Try to argue against what the scientists are saying after you know what you are talking about. There are other theists on this site that can post well supported arguments, there is no reason you can't. Here, you just come off sounding ignorant.

The illusion of me not doing any research is obviously fooling you thoroughly. I have no intention of impressing you with my research. I prefer to look like a fool to make you think you are smarter than I am. Anyone can quote research like a parrot in order to appear intelligent. That does not make them intelligent. Intelligence is a result of thinking for yourself and putting away or overcoming your own foolishness. It is not a result of quoting your teachers or parroting your trainers or trying to impress others.
Your above statement clearly shows me that you presume a lot of things because you misinterpret your own observations which you perceive and interpret as evidence or the lack of it.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:17:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 5:17:12 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

Life produces life. What does that change about anything?

It doesn't change anything. Existence is what it is regardless of what humans observe about it.
The statement "Life produces life" is a statement of a FACT. It will always remain a fact in reality. It is not a theory or a belief based on conjecture or hypothesis of any kind.
The amusing thing is that many people do not believe it always was a fact. Most believe that there was a time when life did not exist to produce life. Then they tell fancy stories about where they think life came from... eg God. vs Evolution of intelligent life forms from non life or non intelligent life. Then they argue about who is telling fairy tales and who is not. It's quite comical really. Can you see the funny side?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 9:55:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:02:24 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/26/2014 11:33:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.
100-years ago, reality would have taught us that only life produces flight, and if you weren't born to fly, then you never would.

Flight is still only produced by life. Either you are born to fly or you are born with the brains to make flying machines, or to make other machines that make flying machines. Life is still in the equation.


EXACTLY ! Its good to see one person can manage to see it takes life to make, invent, or create anything at all.

All you're really saying is that we haven't been able to synthesize life... YET! And given the amazing leaps and bounds we've covered in the field of abiogenesis in the past 30-years, smart money is on the bet that we'll produce synthetic life (real life), in the next 50-years.

It's easy to make noise with a trumpet, but a lot harder to make it sound good. I see no reason to believe that we will ever be able to do more than make a second-rate copy of life.


I agree with idealist.

But you have to be willing to research honestly or you'll never understand what life is, or how it might be synthesized. And once we do synthesize it, the call will go out that it's not "intelligent life", or not "sentient life". Theists aren't good at many things but they're incredibly skilled at shifting goal posts.

Everyone shifts goalposts. When I was young there was a clear distinction between adaptation and evolution. Now adaptation is micro-evolution, and is supposed to prove that evolution happens. Everybody suffers from confirmation bias.

I agree that all people shift goal posts. It all depends what goals they are aiming to achieve. However, no matter how much a person shifts the goal posts of an unrealistic goal, they will never achieve their goal because it is unrealistic in the first place.

Believing what we know to be true is much more intelligent in my opinion than believing that which we only think might be true.
Evolution of life from any non life form is impossible and unrealistic no matter if you believe it came from some supernatural invisible being or from some chemical reaction in space.
No chemicals which are floating around in space are ever going to evolve into an intelligent life form no matter how many billions of years you wish to observe those chemicals. It simply won't happen in reality. It only happens in fantasy land.

Intelligent life, ( of which there is extremely little on this planet ) comes from the intelligent life which reproduced itself through it's own reproductive cycles.
Humans are supposed to be intelligent life forms but observation of the species causes some humans to conclude that very few intelligent humans actually exist. Most are no more intelligent than a programmed computer. They are filled with plenty of information but cannot think for themselves.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 10:07:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 8:04:53 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Because we know, at some point, life did not exist.

How do you KNOW this Oh great and powerful one?
Have you observed the non existence of life in general?
If not, has anyone else observed it?

Do you KNOW this because you were programmed to know it or did you discover this yourself through your personal observation of life in general not existing?

You don't KNOW it at all. You just want to BELIEVE it. There is a vast difference between knowing something is a fact because you have evidence to prove the fact vs believing it is a fact just because you take someone elses word for it.

I KNOW life exists because I can SEE it exists.
I KNOW Life reproduces Life because I can SEE it does.
Those are FACTS which I believe because I have observed them myself not because someone told me I should believe it or have faith without any evidence or place faith in some kind of circumstantial evidence which can easily lead to a wrong conclusion.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 12:14:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:55:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:02:24 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/26/2014 11:33:41 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.
100-years ago, reality would have taught us that only life produces flight, and if you weren't born to fly, then you never would.

Flight is still only produced by life. Either you are born to fly or you are born with the brains to make flying machines, or to make other machines that make flying machines. Life is still in the equation.


EXACTLY ! Its good to see one person can manage to see it takes life to make, invent, or create anything at all.

All you're really saying is that we haven't been able to synthesize life... YET! And given the amazing leaps and bounds we've covered in the field of abiogenesis in the past 30-years, smart money is on the bet that we'll produce synthetic life (real life), in the next 50-years.

It's easy to make noise with a trumpet, but a lot harder to make it sound good. I see no reason to believe that we will ever be able to do more than make a second-rate copy of life.


I agree with idealist.

But you have to be willing to research honestly or you'll never understand what life is, or how it might be synthesized. And once we do synthesize it, the call will go out that it's not "intelligent life", or not "sentient life". Theists aren't good at many things but they're incredibly skilled at shifting goal posts.

Everyone shifts goalposts. When I was young there was a clear distinction between adaptation and evolution. Now adaptation is micro-evolution, and is supposed to prove that evolution happens. Everybody suffers from confirmation bias.

I agree that all people shift goal posts. It all depends what goals they are aiming to achieve. However, no matter how much a person shifts the goal posts of an unrealistic goal, they will never achieve their goal because it is unrealistic in the first place.

Believing what we know to be true is much more intelligent in my opinion than believing that which we only think might be true.
Evolution of life from any non life form is impossible and unrealistic no matter if you believe it came from some supernatural invisible being or from some chemical reaction in space.
No chemicals which are floating around in space are ever going to evolve into an intelligent life form no matter how many billions of years you wish to observe those chemicals. It simply won't happen in reality. It only happens in fantasy land.

Intelligent life, ( of which there is extremely little on this planet ) comes from the intelligent life which reproduced itself through it's own reproductive cycles.
Humans are supposed to be intelligent life forms but observation of the species causes some humans to conclude that very few intelligent humans actually exist. Most are no more intelligent than a programmed computer. They are filled with plenty of information but cannot think for themselves.

But see, that's what I've been doing all my life - trying to become as intelligent as I can be. When I was 18 I was put through an IQ test, for whatever that's worth, and my IQ was 139. I have no idea what it is today, and I really don't care. I am fascinated by the ideas of anyone who takes the time to truly think their ideas through. As I told you earlier, I am always picking and prying at other people's brains. :) I mean no harm in it, it's just my way of learning to study things from every angle.

You and I seem to agree on a lot - that I've definitely noticed. But I still cannot understand why you believe that life is pretty-much static, and always has been. Eternity is a concept which our minds simply cannot encompass, so how is it possible to claim that life is eternal when we can't encompass the implications of such a claim? I keep returning to the idea that there has to be some part of reality which we are totally missing, or unable to comprehend. There exists not one simple explanation of reality. We know that quantum physics is real because of the A-bomb, microwaves, cell-phones, etc., even if we don't really understand how quantum mechanics work. A house made of bricks must take-on some of the property of those bricks. A body made of quantum particles must take-on some of the property of those quantum particles.

I am fascinated by stem-cells. These seem to be the essence of life. Every known organism possesses them, and a stem cell is like a magic cell. Not only can it divide and regenerate, it can also take on the property of any living cell. If you had enough stem cells and the right information on how to instruct their behavior then you could build any living thing you wanted. The mind is a different matter. A lot of scientists think that consciousness is just a function of processing power. They believe that if they could build a computer with enough power then consciousness would simply emerge. I can't accept that. I believe in free will, and the ability to experience things in many different ways. They are all real, IMHO.

I guess that basically our biggest difference is that I cannot simply dismiss what I find to be acceptable ideas. Yes, life begets life, but each cell in our body is a living thing. That makes us a huge aggregate of living things. If the cell, or even the stem-cell, is the basic unit of life, then we are all constructs formed from those basic units in differing combinations. Wouldn't it make sense, then, that the cell was the first truly living thing? I freely admit that I have a very hard time imagining a theistic god like the God of the Christians or Muslims, but I believe there is purpose in the world, and a meaning for our existence. I can't see any real meaning for life that exists in stasis. Yes, if you simply look around you for a short period of time then it is what you see, but that doesn't mean it has always been the same.
DanielS18
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 12:28:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Many people do throw religion out the window when they come to understand that God is a fantasy character. However, they still do not throw the concept of good and evil out the window. They do not throw the concept of judgment out the window because they continue to judge each other constantly.
Religion is filled with fantasy but so is science. The reason is because humans are filled with fantastic ideas with which they are constantly trying to impress others. Science fiction is believed by many people because it appears plausible in their own imaginations.
Very few can tell the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to abstract concepts.
Maths for example is an abstract concept. Is it a fantasy or a reality ? If it is an abstract concept why do scientists use it to prove anything or define and explain anything at all?

Absolutely, math is a human construct, theres no getting around it. But think of where we would be without it. We would have no advanced technology whatsoever. Saying that math is a fantasy is ludicrous. I myself am a physics student. I work with numbers all the time to solve practical, real-world problems. Try to explain how an aircraft flies without math. You can't. And that is just one of a million examples I could bring up. Scientists, or anyone for that matter, require math to explain certain concepts. You picked a terrible example. That's like saying 'why do we use language to explain anything?' Math is the one truly universal language.

Natural or artificial selection are processes which can be observed and manipulated by humans in a human lifetime. It does not prove the theory of evolution in the sense of life once not existing and all life forms evolving from the same original source, any more than watching a science fiction movie about the earth exploding proves that the earth will one day explode.
What humans observe is proof of nothing but of what they observe. All things are only proof of themselves.
Seeing a man walk on water does not prove he can actually walk on water. It only proves that he has been observed to walk on water. Whether he is actually doing what he is observed to be doing is rather questionable when you understand that humans cannot naturally walk on water. Depending on what you know to be true, you will either believe that a man walking on water is a supernatural feat or you will understand that you are observing an illusion in progress and what appears to be real is not real at all.

So, by your rationale, observations are meaningless as they are subjective. I disagree. There are some observations, like when watching a magic show, that you can't take seriously. Fair enough, I get that. However, the observations and evidence pointing towards evolution, for example, are almost universally accepted amongst the scientific community. And remember, scientists are trying to disprove evolution, or any theory for that matter. If they find evidence against a theory, it is a major scientific breakthrough.
And, while evolution by natural selection is an observation, it is not the only evidence pointing towards evolution. There are many other objective forms of evidence.

Evolution has its place. Life forms obviously do grow and change and interact with one another but none of it takes billions of years to produce life itself. The process of the reproduction of life is very fast through lifes own reproductive cycles. When one form of life appears to change into another form of life it is called metamorphosis and even that process does not take billions of years. We understand that mature forms of some things are a very different shape to the immature forms eg tadpoles to frogs, caterpillars to butterflies. Are they changing due to any adaptation to any environment or simply going through their natural life cycles of change?
If a human baby is born with two heads or four legs is that some kind of natural selection process or adaptation to environment or proof of evolution or the birth of some god which needs to be worshipped? Of course not. Nature has many different cycles. Life has many cycles. Those cycle are repetitive and there is no proof that those various cycles once did not exist concurrently and simultaneously in exactly the same way they do today.

It is critical for you to understand that evolution and metamorphosis have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The organisms undergoing metamorphosis aren't adapting to anything, it is just a part of their life cycle. It is also very important to understand that evolution is the change of a population over time, not the change of an individual. It takes multiple generations for evolutionary effects to show up, which is why it takes so long (thousands, if not millions, of years for a population to fully change/adapt). You clearly misunderstand this basic concept within the theory of evolution. The above also covers the 'human with additional limbs' example you bring up.

Because humans are gullible and lazy and like to believe what others say, especially if the so called "teacher" can convince the student they know more than the student does and the convinces the student that they ought to simply take their word for it. That is why the students quote their respected teachers. It makes no difference if the teachers are religious teachers or scientific teachers. The students "drink in"and "swallow" all they teach them and simply believe them because after all , our teachers are supposed to know more than us, right? People end up being like programmed trained parrots who can say what their trainers taught them to say but really have no clue what they are talking about.
The age of anything at all as measured by humans is always subjective. No objective measurement for the age of the planet exists. Age is an abstract concept. How old is eternity? If matter cannot be created or destroyed it has existed for all eternity. Has it not? If not, was it created at some point in time which you wish to call "the beginning of matter" or "the beginning of life"?

I'm not sure what kind of teachers you've been around, but my teachers have always allowed me to think for myself. I don't blindly take their word for it, and they don't expect me to. I study both sides of the argument, and make an informed decision based on the information I attained. I have called teachers out before for teaching me the improper way to do some particular math problem. He admitted to his mistake, corrected himself, and re-taught the lesson.
As for age being subjective, come on. Yes, age is a human idea that is used to explain things in a human way, but, as with math, what the hell would we do without it?
You are confusing matter and energy. Energy is never created or destroyed. Physical matter, however, can be converted into energy and vice-versa, as shown by Einstein's energy-mass equivalence formula.

The illusion of me not doing any research is obviously fooling you thoroughly. I have no intention of impressing you with my research. I prefer to look like a fool to make you think you are smarter than I am. Anyone can quote research like a parrot in order to appear intelligent. That does not make them intelligent. Intelligence is a result of thinking for yourself and putting away or overcoming your own foolishness. It is not a result of quoting your teachers or parroting your trainers or trying to impress others.

Your statement here is ridiculous. I never once said that I believed that I was any smarter than you, and I do not think that. You are, however, throwing observation out the window because you have some asinine pre-conceived notion that we are all biased, and us being human makes it impossible for us to ever get any grasp on anything, simply because we have the potential to view things differently.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 3:29:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:14:38 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:55:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Intelligent life, ( of which there is extremely little on this planet ) comes from the intelligent life which reproduced itself through it's own reproductive cycles.
Humans are supposed to be intelligent life forms but observation of the species causes some humans to conclude that very few intelligent humans actually exist. Most are no more intelligent than a programmed computer. They are filled with plenty of information but cannot think for themselves.

But see, that's what I've been doing all my life - trying to become as intelligent as I can be. When I was 18 I was put through an IQ test, for whatever that's worth, and my IQ was 139. I have no idea what it is today, and I really don't care. I am fascinated by the ideas of anyone who takes the time to truly think their ideas through. As I told you earlier, I am always picking and prying at other people's brains. :) I mean no harm in it, it's just my way of learning to study things from every angle.

First of all IQ tests are meaningless. I took a few in my life and to my great surprise I am supposed to have an IQ larger than Einsteins yet many people still perceive me as a total idiot. IQ is all subjective.
It depends on whether or not you have been made aware of the trick questions which can be asked in them and have practiced those kind of puzzles. Humans can learn how to do puzzles and how to answer trick questions if they want to learn these things. Intelligence is very subjective. Humans on the internet judge others as being intelligent or not simply by what they write. They know nothing about the person on the other side of the screen in reality. They are invisible strangers who feel quite free to abuse each other when they feel like it. Intelligent people understand they are as stupid as any other fool in this world.
Wisdom and foolishness go hand in hand like the heads and tails on a coin. So does intelligence and ignorance. You can't have one without the other. If you know you are ignorant in a particular subject and wish to no longer be ignorant then it is smart to learn what you can about it but sometimes the more we learn and think we know, the more we realize that we really know nothing at all. When you understand that nothing and everything are also just opposite sides of the same thing you might understand that you cannot know everything without knowing nothing and vice versa.
What other people think about us or our intelligence makes no difference to who and what we are.
Picking and prying into other peoples brains to find out how they tick is the way most people learn and discover different view points. However most peoples brains spend more time and do more work in fantasy land than they do in reality.

You and I seem to agree on a lot - that I've definitely noticed. But I still cannot understand why you believe that life is pretty-much static, and always has been.

What makes you think that I believe life is static? Please define your concept of static.
Static to me is something which is standing still and not moving or changing. I do not believe life is static. Life is constantly moving and changing. We can observe things growing moving and changing in any human lifetime. Observe your own life cycle. Once you were a tiny cell in your mothers womb. You changed through many stages and now you are a living adult. One day you will be a corpse or a cell in the ground. Can you pin point any time in that process when you began being "you" and will there ever be a time you can pin point when you stop being "you"?
Life is a PROCESS. Is any part of that process static? The process from my perception is never static.
In an overall perspective of life as a whole, it is always being born and dying at the very same time in the eternal NOW.

Eternity is a concept which our minds simply cannot encompass, so how is it possible to claim that life is eternal when we can't encompass the implications of such a claim?

Why do you believe that your mind is incapable of encompassing eternity? What exactly do you mean by encompassing? Do you mean understanding, comprehending and visualizing the concept of something eternal within the mind?
I believe the human mind is totally capable of encompassing eternity. The concept is already within the mind and the mind is also in it. If you can understand and comprehend the mathematical concept of infinity you can also understand eternity. Your mind is only limited by your own belief about it.

I keep returning to the idea that there has to be some part of reality which we are totally missing, or unable to comprehend. There exists not one simple explanation of reality. We know that quantum physics is real because of the A-bomb, microwaves, cell-phones, etc., even if we don't really understand how quantum mechanics work. A house made of bricks must take-on some of the property of those bricks. A body made of quantum particles must take-on some of the property of those quantum particles.

Life is a complex subject with unlimited possibilities and aspects to it. However, you do not need to understand every aspect individually in order to understand how it works in general. Whether the body is made of "X, Y or Z" is pretty irrelevant to the fact that Life goes through a cycle of reproducing after it's own kind. Whether we understand every aspect of every single cycle or not makes no difference to the FACT that the cycle of Life exists. Humans take on human properties, plants take on plant properties, animals take on animal properties. Natures cycles all have their own properties.

I am fascinated by stem-cells. These seem to be the essence of life. Every known organism possesses them, and a stem cell is like a magic cell. Not only can it divide and regenerate, it can also take on the property of any living cell. If you had enough stem cells and the right information on how to instruct their behavior then you could build any living thing you wanted. The mind is a different matter. A lot of scientists think that consciousness is just a function of processing power. They believe that if they could build a computer with enough power then consciousness would simply emerge. I can't accept that. I believe in free will, and the ability to experience things in many different ways. They are all real, IMHO.

I can't accept that either. I think they are dreaming dreams which will never become a reality because they cannot put the stem cells of self awareness into a computer no matter how much they try to increase the power.
As to "free will" it exists but also does not exist at the same time. It is very subjective and depends on what aspect of the will or life you are talking about. eg: Did you have the free will or choice to be born or not ? Do you have the free will to die naturally or will you die regardless of whether you choose to die or not? Can you choose to live forever in the body you are in now or does Life itself take that choice away from you? If Life destroys your body regardless of whether you want to have it destroyed or not, what exactly is free about your choice?
We certainly have the choice to post in forums on the net or not. We have the choice and free will to reply to others or ignore them. There are plenty of things we can choose through life but when it comes to actually being born and dying or having a natural disaster destroy all our surroundings and all we ever valued in life, we have no choice or free will in the matter. Not even all we experience in life is experienced willingly. I am sure rape victims do not choose to be raped yet they experience someone elses choice being forced upon them. Free will is as debatable as any other subject which has a positive and negative side.
If you are free to choose then you have free will. If you are not free to choose then you do not have free will
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 3:47:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 9:17:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 5:17:12 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

Life produces life. What does that change about anything?

It doesn't change anything. Existence is what it is regardless of what humans observe about it.
The statement "Life produces life" is a statement of a FACT. It will always remain a fact in reality. It is not a theory or a belief based on conjecture or hypothesis of any kind.
The amusing thing is that many people do not believe it always was a fact. Most believe that there was a time when life did not exist to produce life. Then they tell fancy stories about where they think life came from... eg God. vs Evolution of intelligent life forms from non life or non intelligent life. Then they argue about who is telling fairy tales and who is not. It's quite comical really. Can you see the funny side?

So you're saying that life has always existed?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 4:24:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:14:38 AM, Idealist wrote:

I guess that basically our biggest difference is that I cannot simply dismiss what I find to be acceptable ideas. Yes, life begets life, but each cell in our body is a living thing. That makes us a huge aggregate of living things. If the cell, or even the stem-cell, is the basic unit of life, then we are all constructs formed from those basic units in differing combinations.

I agree we are a huge aggregate of living cells. Our cells all come from the "first cell" in the body of our mother. That "first cell" is called the egg. It was fertilized by another cell which is called sperm. Those two cells became "one" and together began to multiply and created all the cells we have in our bodies today. In the process of reproduction they reproduce new "stem cells" which end up in the bodies of our offspring. The stem cells for humans are only found in humans. The stem cells for plants are only found in plants. The stem cells for any particular animal or insect are found within the life form itself. We all ( all life forms) come from different stem cells. We do not all ( All life forms) come from the same stem cell.

Wouldn't it make sense, then, that the cell was the first truly living thing?

No, it does not make any sense that any single cell outside of any mature Life itself was the first truly living thing?
The "first" egg or cell within the womb of a woman cannot possibly live outside of a woman somewhere in space and evolve into a human over billions of years. That cell needs its mother or "host" in which to evolve into a human.
Which came first? The mother/father or the baby? The FACT is that you cannot have one without the other. Both are inside each other. The Mothers and the fathers of future generations are within the humans on this planet NOW. They might not even be a twinkle in their father eyes yet let alone "star dust" in the mothers eyes when she gets all starry eyed about the father figure but they are all still within us. Humans create humans through the human reproductive system.
Which came first? The system/process or the humans? If you cannot have one without the other neither came first. Both are the first and the last at the same time at all times. Are you the first or last of your kind? Is there any other human on this planet exactly the same as you ? Are you individual and unique with individual fingerprints etc or are you just a factory replica of some copy that is made from some "intelligent" blue print or design? What makes you unique? It is not the chemicals in your body if all humans contain the same chemicals.

I freely admit that I have a very hard time imagining a theistic god like the God of the Christians or Muslims, but I believe there is purpose in the world, and a meaning for our existence. I can't see any real meaning for life that exists in stasis. Yes, if you simply look around you for a short period of time then it is what you see, but that doesn't mean it has always been the same.

Mythical characters do not exist any place except in fantasy land.
The purpose of life is to reproduce itself and also destroy itself. That is what it seems to do automatically with or without humans to manipulate it.
Life only has meaning to those who give it meaning. To the rest, it is meaningless. To the author of Ecclesiastes it was also meaningless and vain.
Ecc 1:2 NLT
"Everything is meaningless," says the Teacher, "completely meaningless!"
Life does not exist in statis. It is a constantly moving repetitive cycle of change. It has not always been the same on outward appearances but it has always been the same in essence and in principle. Look at yourself. Have you always been the same you ? Have you changed from being you to being someone else? You have obviously changed from a cell to a grown man but you have always been you from the beginning.
Look at the egg of a butterfly. It becomes a caterpillar which becomes a butterfly. Yet it is still the same thing in essence. Its essence has not changed in spite of its outward appearance and label changing. The cycle goes on and on and on. Only a fool would try to find a beginning or end to it. Which came first? The egg or the butterfly? The egg cannot "arise" without a butterfly and vice versa.

Which comes first on the planet? Morning or evening? When does one begin and the other stop? It takes a fool to think they know these things.
I am just the fool who knows they both exist at the same time and always have. It's simple logic in my own mind. The seed is always within the seed. The wheel is in the wheel. The cycle is in the cycle. The pattern is what it is. Personify the eternal pattern and label it God and you can easily understand it has no beginning or end of itself but has always existed. IT IS the beginning and end of all things which WAS and IS and IS TO COME for all eternity. That is how it is in my mind anyway. The Process exists.
God to me is nothing more than a personified version of that whole process and a human attempt at explaining the process in a very simple way much like teaching a child a concept by the use of talking animals.
Just consider me to be a talking a*ss. ;-)
Hee Haww ;-)
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:08:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/27/2014 10:07:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/27/2014 8:04:53 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Because we know, at some point, life did not exist.

How do you KNOW this Oh great and powerful one?

Through the great wealth of scientific knowledge accumulated over the vast centuries of human history.

Have you observed the non existence of life in general?
If not, has anyone else observed it?

Nope.


Do you KNOW this because you were programmed to know it or did you discover this yourself through your personal observation of life in general not existing?

Neither.


You don't KNOW it at all. You just want to BELIEVE it. There is a vast difference between knowing something is a fact because you have evidence to prove the fact vs believing it is a fact just because you take someone elses word for it.

I KNOW life exists because I can SEE it exists.
I KNOW Life reproduces Life because I can SEE it does.

No you haven't.

Those are FACTS which I believe because I have observed them myself not because someone told me I should believe it or have faith without any evidence or place faith in some kind of circumstantial evidence which can easily lead to a wrong conclusion.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 5:11:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:28:54 AM, DanielS18 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Absolutely, math is a human construct, theres no getting around it. But think of where we would be without it. We would have no advanced technology whatsoever. Saying that math is a fantasy is ludicrous. I myself am a physics student. I work with numbers all the time to solve practical, real-world problems. Try to explain how an aircraft flies without math. You can't. And that is just one of a million examples I could bring up. Scientists, or anyone for that matter, require math to explain certain concepts. You picked a terrible example. That's like saying 'why do we use language to explain anything?' Math is the one truly universal language.

OK, I agree Math is a universal language to those who understand it. Any language at all however is nothing but an abstract human means of communication. It makes no difference what symbols or numbers we use. In essence all communication is abstract and can be used to convey both fantasy and reality to one another. It is a process which connects human minds together through logic and reasoning. All human measurements are relative to that human construct as well as relative to the method used to measure an object. Therefore no person on earth can objectively claim the earth or any other planet is "X" years old because the measurement is totally subjective and may indeed result in being just a fantasy or a figment of our own construct. The math itself might not be a fantasy but the conclusions we come to through the use of it may indeed be a fantasy and we may be more in error than we realize. Take the human body for example. If we were to determine its age by the age of its cells, apparently none of us would be much more than ten years old because apparently the cells don't live much longer than that. The biological age obviously does not equal the chronological age and can be a lot less. If the process of measuring the age of the earths by using parts of its surface is similar to the concept of determining the age of the total human from the cells age, the end result would be totally incorrect chronologically even if it accepted as being correct biologically. If a person claimed I was no more then ten years old because that is the age of my cells, I would laugh them to scorn and tell them they came to the wrong conclusion since I am a lot older than they decided I was.
Have I made myself clear enough for you to understand ? The earth and the whole universe itself could easily be eternal and immeasurable. Humans might indeed be be very foolish to try to determine or "prove" its age. Does the age of the universe really matter in the long run?

So, by your rationale, observations are meaningless as they are subjective. I disagree. There are some observations, like when watching a magic show, that you can't take seriously. Fair enough, I get that. However, the observations and evidence pointing towards evolution, for example, are almost universally accepted amongst the scientific community. And remember, scientists are trying to disprove evolution, or any theory for that matter. If they find evidence against a theory, it is a major scientific breakthrough.
And, while evolution by natural selection is an observation, it is not the only evidence pointing towards evolution. There are many other objective forms of evidence.

Whether an observation is meaningless or not is a matter of debate within itself. Different people can judge the very same process as meaningful or meaningless depending on whether they understand their own observations or not. I think all of us would agree that human observations are indeed subjective and can never really be objective because we view them through human eyes and process through our human minds. We will never have anything but a subjective human observation processed through very subjective humans. If we saw things in the same way as a bee or a dog or some other animal or insect does, would be come to different conclusions about our own observations? Think about that. Human perception is unique to humans.
There are obviously some things in life which we understand are illusions and we are entertained by them but when we do not realize they are illusions we can easily be fooled by them.
Evolution is nothing more than a process of growth and change. The growth and change can be observed within any species but the fact remains that no one has ever observed one species transforming into a another or life arising from something non living in the first place. The whole idea of life once not existing in general and all life forms evolving from the same original source, is a fantasy regardless of whether you believe some supernatural God did it or some chemical reaction in the universe did it. The question will always remain the same the end... Where did the original source come from if that source itself once did not exist. Since nothing can come from nothing we must logically conclude that something has always exited.
IF science is correct and matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed then all things which exist today must have always existed even if not in a humanly visible form.
IF matter/energy is eternal then the whole universe has always existed and it makes no difference how old humans decide it is, they will always be wrong if they end up with a finite answer because the age of anything which has always existed must obviously and logically be infinite. To end up with a finite answer of the age of anything at all, humans are implying that it has not always exited but "began" or was "created" or "arose" at 'X" point in time. Applying a finite age to infinite matter is ridiculous and very foolish in my opinion. I see no point to it other than to promote the fantasies which humans like to hang on to regarding life once not existing.
You cannot claim matter/energy as whole cannot be created or destroyed and then also claim that once upon a time it did not exist and was either created or formed or arose or evolved or whatever other word you wish to use to imply the concept that visible objects "magically" came from the invisible realm.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 5:55:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 12:28:54 AM, DanielS18 wrote:
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:

It is critical for you to understand that evolution and metamorphosis have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The organisms undergoing metamorphosis aren't adapting to anything, it is just a part of their life cycle. It is also very important to understand that evolution is the change of a population over time, not the change of an individual. It takes multiple generations for evolutionary effects to show up, which is why it takes so long (thousands, if not millions, of years for a population to fully change/adapt). You clearly misunderstand this basic concept within the theory of evolution. The above also covers the 'human with additional limbs' example you bring up.

No person has ever observed the process of evolution of any intelligent life form from any nonliving non intelligent form. It is as much a fantasy as claiming a supernatural character named God created everything from nothing.
Life with all its different reproductive cycles cannot have evolved from non living matter or some chemicals which have no reproductive cycles in the first place. It is simply ludicrous to believe all matter arose from any single source especially if no new matter can be created or destroyed. A great variety of matter/energy must have always existed the same as it does today.

I'm not sure what kind of teachers you've been around, but my teachers have always allowed me to think for myself. I don't blindly take their word for it, and they don't expect me to. I study both sides of the argument, and make an informed decision based on the information I attained. I have called teachers out before for teaching me the improper way to do some particular math problem. He admitted to his mistake, corrected himself, and re-taught the lesson.

Teachers all appear to encourage student to think for themselves but when it comes to passing any exams you need to give them the answers they want to hear and believe are correct, not something "outside the box" as it were. For example no person would pass bible school if they questioned the whole concept of God in the first place and pointed out the flaws in religious doctrines. They would be thrown out as heretics and never ordained as a minister. In that sense you need to tell the teachers what they want to hear in order to be accepted into their clique or club. Science also has basic traditional beliefs which most people just take for granted and do not question.

As for age being subjective, come on. Yes, age is a human idea that is used to explain things in a human way, but, as with math, what the hell would we do without it?
It is one of those things we simply take for granted and do not question. However, it is nothing but a way of communicating an abstract thought.
If you determined my age by my cells and none of my cells are more than ten years old, how old would you decide I am overall?
If I tell you I am a lot older than ten years old and you have so called "proof " ( cells age) which appears to prove me wrong, who is wrong? the person who determined my age according to the biological age of my cells or the person who determined my age chronologically because they observed and recorded the day I was born and decided to count from that day? Did I exist before I was born or am I a creation of "new matter" which once did not exist?
The fact is that any age of anything determined by humans is relative to what standard they use as a measuring device and what point they decide to use a starting point.
I could say I am nothing but a ball of energy which has always existed. In that sense I am eternal and ageless. LOL

You are confusing matter and energy. Energy is never created or destroyed. Physical matter, however, can be converted into energy and vice-versa, as shown by Einstein's energy-mass equivalence formula.

Matter and energy are simply two words to describe the same thing in different forms. If one cannot be created or destroyed but only changes form, the same principle must apply to the other. If something cannot be created or destroyed, the form it takes or the word you use to describe that form is irrelevant to the fact that it still cannot be created or destroyed.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 6:02:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 3:47:34 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:17:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:

The statement "Life produces life" is a statement of a FACT. It will always remain a fact in reality. It is not a theory or a belief based on conjecture or hypothesis of any kind.
The amusing thing is that many people do not believe it always was a fact. Most believe that there was a time when life did not exist to produce life. Then they tell fancy stories about where they think life came from... eg God. vs Evolution of intelligent life forms from non life or non intelligent life. Then they argue about who is telling fairy tales and who is not. It's quite comical really. Can you see the funny side?

So you're saying that life has always existed?

I am saying that Life in GENERAL must have always existed in order to reproduce itself.
I totally understand the concept of life APPEARING to not exist due to being invisible to humans before something is born and after it has disintegrated back to dust.
Life seem to have a temporary aspect to it as well as an eternal aspect.
It all depends on which perspective you are looking at.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 6:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 11:08:53 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 5/27/2014 10:07:05 PM, Skyangel wrote:

Through the great wealth of scientific knowledge accumulated over the vast centuries of human history.

Which ought to be constantly questioned and never taken for granted.

Have you observed the non existence of life in general?
If not, has anyone else observed it?

Nope.

Then it is foolishness to believe it once did not exist, especially since life can come from nothing but life itself.


Do you KNOW this because you were programmed to know it or did you discover this yourself through your personal observation of life in general not existing?

Neither.

Then you are kidding yourself when you claim to KNOW it.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 6:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 6:02:52 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 3:47:34 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:17:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:

The statement "Life produces life" is a statement of a FACT. It will always remain a fact in reality. It is not a theory or a belief based on conjecture or hypothesis of any kind.
The amusing thing is that many people do not believe it always was a fact. Most believe that there was a time when life did not exist to produce life. Then they tell fancy stories about where they think life came from... eg God. vs Evolution of intelligent life forms from non life or non intelligent life. Then they argue about who is telling fairy tales and who is not. It's quite comical really. Can you see the funny side?

So you're saying that life has always existed?

I am saying that Life in GENERAL must have always existed in order to reproduce itself.

Why?

I totally understand the concept of life APPEARING to not exist due to being invisible to humans before something is born and after it has disintegrated back to dust.
Life seem to have a temporary aspect to it as well as an eternal aspect.
It all depends on which perspective you are looking at.

Feel free to believe that, but do you have any evidence?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 7:30:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 9:04:39 PM, Skyangel wrote:
Reality teaches us that life produces life.

Lifes own reproductive cycles teach us the reality of where life comes from.
These cycles are observable in every life form.

Why then do humans still hold on to the myths that ... Once upon a time Life in general did not exist and was created or formed by some non life form.?

Because thats what the evidence tells us, in that the universe had a beginning, and as life forms which are made of matter, therefore we must also have had a beginning.

Is it not time humans grew out of that fantasy which can never be proved due to lack of evidence?

How do you know it could NEVER be proved? Are you a time traveller? Have you seen the future?

It is not time humans accepted and believed in the reality which CAN be observed by every generation on earth?

Including the evidence of the big bang theory and therefore the fact that the universe had a beginning?

Why throw reality our of the window and embrace fantasies instead?

Because the evidence tells us it happened.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 10:35:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 3:29:20 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 12:14:38 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/27/2014 9:55:44 PM, Skyangel wrote:

But see, that's what I've been doing all my life - trying to become as intelligent as I can be. When I was 18 I was put through an IQ test, for whatever that's worth, and my IQ was 139. I have no idea what it is today, and I really don't care. I am fascinated by the ideas of anyone who takes the time to truly think their ideas through. As I told you earlier, I am always picking and prying at other people's brains. :) I mean no harm in it, it's just my way of learning to study things from every angle.

First of all IQ tests are meaningless. I took a few in my life and to my great surprise I am supposed to have an IQ larger than Einsteins yet many people still perceive me as a total idiot. IQ is all subjective.
It depends on whether or not you have been made aware of the trick questions which can be asked in them and have practiced those kind of puzzles. Humans can learn how to do puzzles and how to answer trick questions if they want to learn these things. Intelligence is very subjective. Humans on the internet judge others as being intelligent or not simply by what they write. They know nothing about the person on the other side of the screen in reality. They are invisible strangers who feel quite free to abuse each other when they feel like it. Intelligent people understand they are as stupid as any other fool in this world.

You seem to have missed my whole point here. I added "for what it's worth" exactly to imply that I place little stock in intelligence tests. It was the idea of intelligence itself which set me on the quest of broad-spectrum learning. I could have scored a 10 and it wouldn't have changed that fact.

Wisdom and foolishness go hand in hand like the heads and tails on a coin. So does intelligence and ignorance. You can't have one without the other. If you know you are ignorant in a particular subject and wish to no longer be ignorant then it is smart to learn what you can about it but sometimes the more we learn and think we know, the more we realize that we really know nothing at all. When you understand that nothing and everything are also just opposite sides of the same thing you might understand that you cannot know everything without knowing nothing and vice versa. What other people think about us or our intelligence makes no difference to who and what we are.

Every coin has a "heads" and a "tails." A person doesn't have to be foolish in order to be intelligent. There is a difference between being foolish and making some foolish mistakes, and there is a difference between foolishness and ignorance, which is simply a lack of knowledge. Nothing and everything are not separate sides of the same coin. There is a whole lot of space between nothing and everything, and nobody who has one must necessarily have ever possessed the other. What other people think of our intelligence is important because it affects the weight they attach to our observations. If we don't want our words to have any authority, then yes, it's fine to be perceived as unintelligent, just as it's okay to be a slow person if you don't want to win any races.

Picking and prying into other peoples brains to find out how they tick is the way most people learn and discover different view points. However most peoples brains spend more time and do more work in fantasy land than they do in reality.

That is a good thing, as Einstein and others have noted. Imagination is the fertile ground upon which seeds of thought are planted.

You and I seem to agree on a lot - that I've definitely noticed. But I still cannot understand why you believe that life is pretty-much static, and always has been.

What makes you think that I believe life is static? Please define your concept of static.

You say life is static - that life begets life as it exists now and it has always been so. You say the universe is basically the same entity it has always been, and was never created nor will ever be destroyed. That's my meaning of static.

Static to me is something which is standing still and not moving or changing. I do not believe life is static. Life is constantly moving and changing. We can observe things growing moving and changing in any human lifetime. Observe your own life cycle. Once you were a tiny cell in your mothers womb. You changed through many stages and now you are a living adult. One day you will be a corpse or a cell in the ground. Can you pin point any time in that process when you began being "you" and will there ever be a time you can pin point when you stop being "you"?

Exactly. You think it is standing-still and never changing. Just because I see a star in the sky I don't simply suppose that it has always been there. What of all the stars we've seen explode? Using simple math we can reasonably deduce that a billion years ago our galaxy was a much different place.

No, I can't pin a time when I won't be me, but that is an extremely limited sample of life as a whole. I know that people adapt because I've seen people of many different colors, builds, sizes, etc. We know that species go instinct and other species are formed. In many ways we are like the stem-cell. I came from "dirt," will return to "dirt," and then other people will grow partly from my remains. But they won't be me. I have no reason to think that I will ever exist in this exact form ever again.

Life is a PROCESS. Is any part of that process static? The process from my perception is never static.
In an overall perspective of life as a whole, it is always being born and dying at the very same time in the eternal NOW.

Again, you pretty much explained it yourself when you defined your understanding of static as "something that is standing-still and not moving or changing." That's all fine and dandy when applied to a single life, but not life as a whole. Even created things like cars and computers evolve. What is it that makes you believe in an "eternal now"?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 11:05:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/28/2014 4:24:41 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 5/28/2014 12:14:38 AM, Idealist wrote:

I guess that basically our biggest difference is that I cannot simply dismiss what I find to be acceptable ideas. Yes, life begets life, but each cell in our body is a living thing. That makes us a huge aggregate of living things. If the cell, or even the stem-cell, is the basic unit of life, then we are all constructs formed from those basic units in differing combinations.

I agree we are a huge aggregate of living cells. Our cells all come from the "first cell" in the body of our mother. That "first cell" is called the egg. It was fertilized by another cell which is called sperm. Those two cells became "one" and together began to multiply and created all the cells we have in our bodies today. In the process of reproduction they reproduce new "stem cells" which end up in the bodies of our offspring. The stem cells for humans are only found in humans. The stem cells for plants are only found in plants. The stem cells for any particular animal or insect are found within the life form itself. We all ( all life forms) come from different stem cells. We do not all ( All life forms) come from the same stem cell.

So which do you think came first, the mother or the egg? Surely you don't think that a woman just snapped into a being along with a man to impregnate her, or that two fertilized eggs (male and female) just happened to arise? How can you explain the existence of living being which is an aggregate of many other living beings? They must have come-together in cooperation at some point. You don't even believe they were created, just that they somehow were. And in fact the zygotes of different species are so similar inside the womb that they can appear nearly identical. It's only the DNA that sets us apart.

Wouldn't it make sense, then, that the cell was the first truly living thing?

No, it does not make any sense that any single cell outside of any mature Life itself was the first truly living thing?

Then why doesn't it? Can you please explain how you think trillions of cells came together in staggering complexity just to form one single life without a purpose, or without any help? Actually two sets of cells, since we need male and female.

The "first" egg or cell within the womb of a woman cannot possibly live outside of a woman somewhere in space and evolve into a human over billions of years. That cell needs its mother or "host" in which to evolve into a human.

That's a description of current biology, not of the origins of life. Do you believe that since we have language now then we must always have had it?

Which came first? The mother/father or the baby? The FACT is that you cannot have one without the other. Both are inside each other. The Mothers and the fathers of future generations are within the humans on this planet NOW. They might not even be a twinkle in their father eyes yet let alone "star dust" in the mothers eyes when she gets all starry eyed about the father figure but they are all still within us. Humans create humans through the human reproductive system.

A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have. A man continually produces sperm. What you describe is the state of life as it exists NOW. It does not address where it came from, why it is here, or where it is going. We know that things change with time, but you seem to be simply ignoring that fact.

Which came first? The system/process or the humans? If you cannot have one without the other neither came first. Both are the first and the last at the same time at all times. Are you the first or last of your kind? Is there any other human on this planet exactly the same as you ? Are you individual and unique with individual fingerprints etc or are you just a factory replica of some copy that is made from some "intelligent" blue print or design? What makes you unique? It is not the chemicals in your body if all humans contain the same chemicals.

Do you believe that all of existence happens in a single moment? If you treat time a an unmeasurable thing then that's just as likely as eternal stasis.

I freely admit that I have a very hard time imagining a theistic god like the God of the Christians or Muslims, but I believe there is purpose in the world, and a meaning for our existence. I can't see any real meaning for life that exists in stasis. Yes, if you simply look around you for a short period of time then it is what you see, but that doesn't mean it has always been the same.

Mythical characters do not exist any place except in fantasy land.

What you are describing IS a fantasy land. Everything just exists from nowhere and is going nowhere for no reason? That's not exactly a reasonable assessment of our world.

The purpose of life is to reproduce itself and also destroy itself. That is what it seems to do automatically with or without humans to manipulate it.

So the purpose of life is to ensure death? It must create enough living beings to keep the killing from stopping?

Life only has meaning to those who give it meaning. To the rest, it is meaningless. To the author of Ecclesiastes it was also meaningless and vain.

I'm not a religious person. It makes no difference to quote scripture to me. I find parts of it to be insightful, but hardly authoritative.

Ecc 1:2 NLT
"Everything is meaningless," says the Teacher, "completely meaningless!"
Life does not exist in statis. It is a constantly moving repetitive cycle of change. It has not always been the same on outward appearances but it has always been the same in essence and in principle. Look at yourself. Have you always been the same you ? Have you changed from being you to being someone else? You have obviously changed from a cell to a grown man but you have always been you from the beginning.
Look at the egg of a butterfly. It becomes a caterpillar which becomes a butterfly. Yet it is still the same thing in essence. Its essence has not changed in spite of its outward appearance and label changing. The cycle goes on and on and on. Only a fool would try to find a beginning or end to it. Which came first? The egg or the butterfly? The egg cannot "arise" without a butterfly and vice versa.

Which comes first on the planet? Morning or evening? When does one begin and the other stop? It takes a fool to think they know these things.
I am just the fool who knows they both exist at the same time and always have. It's simple logic in my own mind. The seed is always within the seed. The wheel is in the wheel. The cycle is in the cycle. The pattern is what it is. Personify the eternal pattern and label it God and you can easily understand it has no beginning or end of itself but has always existed. IT IS the beginning and end of all things which WAS and IS and IS TO COME for all eternity. That is how it is in my mind anyway. The Process exists.
God to me is nothing more than a personified version of that whole process and a human attempt at explaining the process in a very simple way much like teaching a child a concept by the use of talking animals.
Just consider me to be a talking a*ss. ;-)
Hee Haww ;-)

Before the existence of Earth and life to witness it then neither sunrise nor sunset existed. In fact, both words are total misnomers, since the sun doesn't rise or set. It only appears that way to us. You don't seem to be a "talking a*ss at all, but I can't make sense of a philosophy based totally on spontaneous and eternal existence.